( 1 ) THE applicant Nanku Lal Yadav has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2005, under sections 302, 307, 506 I. P. C. Police Station Tharwai District Allahabad. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case starts with a F. I. R. lodged by Shri Rajendra Yadav, Advocate at police station Tharwai District Allahabad on 2. 11. 05 at 11. 05 A. M. It is stated therein that Sri Rajendra Yadav resides at village Dharampurghurwa P. S. Tharwai District Allahabad. Suresh Kumar Yadav and Bhaiya Ram Yadav are also residents of the same village. On the aforesaid date, both these persons were present at their houses, and at about 10 A. M. the accused Nanku Lal Yadav, village Pradhan, Daya Ram and Mahesh Kumar having rifles and guns in their hands reached there and started firing. Suresh Kumar received firearm injury on his chin and he died on the spot. Bhaiya Ram also received firearm injuries and he fell down. Thereafter their family members took them to police station Tharwai. It was, therefore, prayed that action should be taken in the matter. ( 3 ) THE applicant has alleged that he is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He has given a cross version of the incident which is based upon a report lodged by Sri Ram Shiromani at Police Station Tharwai on 9. 11. 2005 at 10. 10 P. M. on the basis of which case crime No. 199 of 2005 under sections 147,148,149,452,307,323, 392, 427, 436 I. P. C. was registered at the above police station. It was stated in that report that Ram Shiromani resides at village Dharampurghurwa Police Station Tharwai District Allahabad. On 1. 11. 2005, at about 8 P. M. the accused Banshi Lal , Balram, Tribhuwan, Rakesh and Suresh with whom Ram Shiromani had enmity, entered his house and with an intention to murder his brother Ram Sajiwan they beat him with lathis dandas, legs and fists and pulled him out of the house and caused fatal injuries to him. His condition was serious and so he had been admitted at Pooja Hospital in Allahabad. A report in respect of this incident was registered at police station Tharwai as case crime No 117 of 2005 under sections 308,323,504 and 506 I. P. C. against the above named persons. On 2. 11. His condition was serious and so he had been admitted at Pooja Hospital in Allahabad. A report in respect of this incident was registered at police station Tharwai as case crime No 117 of 2005 under sections 308,323,504 and 506 I. P. C. against the above named persons. On 2. 11. 05 at about 9 A. M. the accused Ram Abhilash having a country made pistol in his hand, Amrit Lal having Pharsa, Bhaiya Ram, Rajendra and Virendra having petrol, fire, illicit arms and bombs in their hands and Tulsi Ram having a country made pistol in his hand, and Arvind attacked the house of Rakesh. They burnt the Vikram Tempo and Motor Cycle of Rakesh son of Ram Abhilakh after pouring kerosene oil upon them. The accused broke open the door of his house. Then they committed dacoity by looting colour T. V. , fan, jewellery and Rs. 10000/- in cash and when they did not find any male member in the house, they beat ladies with fists, legs and dandas and insulted them. They also did indiscriminate firing and threw bombs. Then they attacked the house of Ramesh son of Datadin and threw bombs and did firing. Thereafter they attacked the houses of Nankoo Lal, Dayaram and Mahesh. The male members of these houses were present at Pooja Hospital in Allahabad at that time and so the accused beat the ladies and children living in those houses with lathis, dandas, fists and legs and started indiscriminate firing from country made pistol and other illicit fire arms and also threw bombs when these ladies and children shouted for help, Ram Naresh, Ram Singh , Ram Chandra and Ranvijay etc. reached there. Then the accused ran away throwing bombs and doing firing from fire arms. In the meantime, Suresh son of Amrit Lal received fire arm injury from the fires done by Banshi Lal and so he fell down. Since the condition of Ram Sajiwan was serious , Ram Shiromani and his family members could not go to the police station to lodge the report earlier. It was, therefore, requested that action should be taken in the matter. ( 4 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a cross case and since there are injuries on both the sides, bail should be granted to the applicant. It was, therefore, requested that action should be taken in the matter. ( 4 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a cross case and since there are injuries on both the sides, bail should be granted to the applicant. His learned counsel cited before me a ruling of Honble Supreme Court in Vashishth Singh Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 2002 S. C. 487 in which it has been held that where there is cross case, bail should be granted. ( 5 ) LEARNED A. G. A and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the bail application. They submitted that it is not a cross case and the theory of cross case has been developed and concocted at a very late stage simply with a view to create defence and to obtain bail. He submitted that as per prosecution allegation this incident had taken place on 2. 11. 2005 at 10 A. M. and the F. I. R. of this incident was lodged soon thereafter at 11. 05 A. M. and this prompt F. I. R. mitigates the possibility giving any false version of the incident. He further pointed out that the prosecution version is supported by the medical evidence also because as per post mortem report of Suresh he received one fire arm wound of entry on his chin and the other fire arm wound of entry on his neck. He further submitted that the post mortem examination was conducted on 2. 11. 2005 at 5. 25 P. M. and death had taken place about day earlier in the opinion of the Doctor and in this way the post mortem report supports the prosecution version of death at 10 A. M. He further pointed out that according to the injury report of Bhaiya Ram, he was medically examined on 2. 11. 2005 at 4. 15 P. M. and he had received two lacerated wounds on his forehead and the injuries were fresh. He further pointed out that the cross version of the incident came up for the first time from the side of the accused on 9. 11. 2005 that is after seven days from the date of the incident. 11. 2005 at 4. 15 P. M. and he had received two lacerated wounds on his forehead and the injuries were fresh. He further pointed out that the cross version of the incident came up for the first time from the side of the accused on 9. 11. 2005 that is after seven days from the date of the incident. He further pointed out that according to this cross F. I. R. eight persons armed with fire arms, bombs and other arms had attacked at the house of Rakesh, Ramesh, Nankoo Lal, Mukesh and Daya Ram and had committed dacoity by breaking open the doors and had beaten ladies and children with lathis, dandas, fists and legs, and did indiscriminate firing from country made pistols and other illicit fire arms and had also thrown bombs and caused injuries to ladies and children living in those houses and their own companion Suresh died as a result of fires done by his companion Banshi Lal. He submitted that no injured from the side of the accused was medically examined nor there was any medical report of any one to support the cross version of the accused persons. It was also pointed out that the allegation of accused is that Ram Sajiwan had received fatal injuries in the incident which had taken place on 1. 11. 05 but the injury report of Ram Sajiwan had also not been filed in support of the so called incident which is alleged to have taken place on 2. 11. 05. Nankoo Lal had lodged a F. I. R. on 4. 11. 05 in respect of the above incident dated 1. 11. 05 but in that report also there was no mention of this cross version of the incident which allegedly took place on 2. 11. 05. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the prosecution and the complainant submitted that if any such incident as alleged in the report dated 9. 11. 05 had taken place, the accused must have given reference of that incident in their report dated 4. 11. 05. 11. 05. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the prosecution and the complainant submitted that if any such incident as alleged in the report dated 9. 11. 05 had taken place, the accused must have given reference of that incident in their report dated 4. 11. 05. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the prosecution that when there is no medical evidence to support allegation of cross version and when the report of the cross version had been lodged after expiry of a period of one week from the date of the incident, the accused can not get benefit of so called cross case and he is not entitled to bail. ( 7 ) IT was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Mahesh Kumar and Daya Ram of this case have already been granted bail and in the F. I. R. it has not been specified as to which fire arm was in the hands of which accused and there are general allegations against all the accused in the F. I. R. and so bail should be granted to the applicant. ( 8 ) IN reply learned counsel for the prosecution referred to the statement of the injured Bhaiya Ram recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. in which it has been stated that the accused Nanku Pradhan was armed with rifle and Daya Ram was armed with gun and Mahesh was throwing bricks and stones. It was further submitted that according to the statement of this witness Nanku had fired from his Rifle resulting into injury to Suresh and as a result of that firearm injury Suresh died on the spot. He submitted that in this way Nanku is the main accused in this case and so bail should not be granted to him. ( 9 ) LEANED counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the statement of Rajendra Yadav Nanku was armed with gun and Daya Ram was armed with Rifle and that Nanku had fired from his gun resulting into injuries to Suresh. He submitted that in this way the statements of Rajendra Yadav and Bhaiya Ram are self contradictory and when it has not been specified in the F. I. R. as to what fire arm was with the accused Nanku , bail should be granted to him also. He submitted that in this way the statements of Rajendra Yadav and Bhaiya Ram are self contradictory and when it has not been specified in the F. I. R. as to what fire arm was with the accused Nanku , bail should be granted to him also. ( 10 ) IN reply, learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that Bhaiya Ram is an injured eye witness who was present on the spot from the very inception and according to the statement of Bhaiya Ram, Rajendra Yadav reached the spot after hearing the noise and sound of fires and so the statement of Bhaiya Ram is more reliable. ( 11 ) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but taking into consideration the submission of both the parties referred to above, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The application is rejected. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the trial court shall try to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period for no fault of the accused, the applicant would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application. .